SCAM - Coinabul owe me 90btc

[Scott J]

I think the value is what needs to be refunded.  That is about 40BTC right now.  That way, no one is really at a loss.  Of course, my reasoning falls apart when you consider that if the price of gold doubled then it would be ok to send only half an ounce; if you consider things as only the value they represent.  But, Gold is a commodity and Bitcoin is a currency.  Bitcoins represent buying power, and so if 40 BTC were refunded then the gold coin could just be bought elsewhere.  This way no one could hedge anyone (as far as the currencies are concerned).

WTF? Scenario:

• Buyer pays you 100 BTC for something.
• BTC's worth doubles in USD.
• You don't send what Buyer ordered.
• Buyer (obviously) wants a refund.
• You'd then try to only owe Buyer 50 BTC?

The only one getting screwed would be the Buyer. Comparative value is meaningless. The Buyer cares about what he paid in his/her bitcoin. Alternatively, if bitcoin became half as much in USD, Buyer would still be owed 100 BTC. How is it possible to not see how unfair it is to be refunded in anything other than the original amount?

IT IS THIS SIMPLE

[1715437172]

1715437172

[1715437172]

1715437172

[Raoul Duke]

Bitcoin is a currency.

Citation needed.

Currency: The fact or quality of being generally accepted or in use.

The very fact that it is being used as a medium of exchange makes it currency.

So are cigarettes.

Bitcoin is so much more than that. Traditional definitions don't work.
But I suppose you can call it a currency. And I may call it a payment network. Others may say it's both. It's complicated

[2weiX]

time for me to change my ToS, then ^^

I will be sure to read it thoroughly before ordering.

I agree that if you state in your TOS that prices are set in USD and refunds will be given based on that then you are being fair.

Think this sentence makes it clear?

If we have to refund, we will do so according to the value of the item in USD or EUR at the time.

Longer version:

In the case that we have to refund you, we will refund you in a currency of your choice (USD, EUR, BTC) according to the value of the item in USD or EUR at the time the order was placed.

Yikes. Is that really the business practice you want to engage in?

What if you don't even send the product, as is the case of this thread? You're going to "refund" (i.e. give the person his money back -- the money that was never yours to begin with) in a different currency because you want to keep some of it?

I agree that it's a borderline issue. However, seeing that in .de the customer has explicitly NO right to ask for a refund or return when buying PMs (because the items are subject to exchange rate fluctuation), I would further argue that here the same is the case.

So either see that the guy gets the Rand or refund the VALUE of the rand.



Turn it around - you actually deliver, the price falls, you will NOT get 1605USD for your coin, but only 1500USD.

I agree that the circumstances are different, but the principle applied is the same.

Disclaimer: IMHO, since IANAL.

[aric]

I agree that it's a borderline issue. However, seeing that in .de the customer has explicitly NO right to ask for a refund or return when buying PMs (because the items are subject to exchange rate fluctuation), I would further argue that here the same is the case.

So either see that the guy gets the Rand or refund the VALUE of the rand.



Turn it around - you actually deliver, the price falls, you will NOT get 1605USD for your coin, but only 1500USD.

I agree that the circumstances are different, but the principle applied is the same.

Disclaimer: IMHO, since IANAL.

It's not a borderline issue.

It's a very simple issue. Refunding the "value" of something in different (and lesser) denomination than you gave is completely crooked. We're not talking about returns. We're talking about refunding the failed purchase of an item that never shipped. I don't understand why this is so hard to appreciate and comprehend. This is basic business and accounting 101.

[bravenec]

I agree that it's a borderline issue. However, seeing that in .de the customer has explicitly NO right to ask for a refund or return when buying PMs (because the items are subject to exchange rate fluctuation), I would further argue that here the same is the case.

So either see that the guy gets the Rand or refund the VALUE of the rand.

Turn it around - you actually deliver, the price falls, you will NOT get 1605USD for your coin, but only 1500USD.

I agree that the circumstances are different, but the principle applied is the same.

Disclaimer: IMHO, since IANAL.

The same in Czech republic - customer has no right to ask for a refund or return at the buyig price if the price depends on the exchange rate. But accordance to Czech republic laws such trade never hapened. I ordered Krugerand + shipping + insurance + express delivery as a complete set. The item was never sent to me. No trade was made. All money must be sent back to me.

I like the equotation

"The Krugerrand" = 90 BTC

So I want to make trade => I have my Krugerrand + shipping + insurance,
or
make no trade => I have my bitcoins.

I gave Coinabul many propositions. One proposition was "man in the middle" - the same offer you gave me. It was said to me that this is illegal. I gave Coinabul this proposition again now. We will see what happen.

[HighInBC]

Why is it illegal to send a krug to the Czech republic? Part of an embargo against South Africa, or is it for any type of precious metals?

[2weiX]

Why is it illegal to send a krug to the Czech republic? Part of an embargo against South Africa, or is it for any type of precious metals?

nope, my fedex ships to CZR.

[Bitinvestor]

Why is it illegal to send a krug to the Czech republic? Part of an embargo against South Africa, or is it for any type of precious metals?

It isn't illegal. Coinabul made it up as a reason for why they didn't send his gold. Maybe they pocketed the insurance payout from the other poster as well?

Edit: I take this back. For reason see below.

[bravenec]

Why is it illegal to send a krug to the Czech republic? Part of an embargo against South Africa, or is it for any type of precious metals?

I don't know why it is illegal. May be the Czech republic is part of South Africa or North Korea? I don't know :-)

Citation of Jay Coinabul:

Nor would I be able to have some other courier type deliver your parcel: there's no way we can legally deliver your product to you ...

Whole email conversation is here:

http://bravenec.eu/coinabul/

Think about the "ilegality" whatever you want. I think that the "ilegality" is only a special purpose.

[Bitinvestor]

Why is it illegal to send a krug to the Czech republic? Part of an embargo against South Africa, or is it for any type of precious metals?

It isn't illegal. Coinabul made it up as a reason for why they didn't send his gold. Maybe they pocketed the insurance payout from the other poster as well?

I googled it and I found this:

Coins; banknotes; currency notes, including paper money; securities of any kind payable to bearer; traveler’s checks; platinum, gold, and silver; precious stones; jewelry; watches; and other valuable articles are prohibited in Express Mail International shipments to the Czech Republic.

http://pe.usps.com/text/imm/ce_019.htm

I don't know if this applies only to USPS or to other couriers as well.

Edit:
Fedex has similar restrictions:

General Import Restrictions
The following items are not acceptable for carriage to any international destinations unless otherwise indicated.
...
Money (coins, cash, currency, paper money and negotiable instruments equivalent to cash such as endorsed stocks, bonds and cash letters).

http://www.fedex.com/us/international/irc/profiles/irc_cz_profile.html?gtmcc=us

[dayfall]

WTF? Scenario:

• Buyer pays you 100 BTC for something.
• BTC's worth doubles in USD.
• You don't send what Buyer ordered.
• Buyer (obviously) wants a refund.
• You'd then try to only owe Buyer 50 BTC?

The only one getting screwed would be the Buyer. Comparative value is meaningless. The Buyer cares about what he paid in his/her bitcoin. Alternatively, if bitcoin became half as much in USD, Buyer would still be owed 100 BTC. How is it possible to not see how unfair it is to be refunded in anything other than the original amount?

Suppose, the Gold coin was sent.  The buyer still gets screwed (because his good is only worth 50 when he paid 100) by that logic.  

In your way, the buyer takes the risk and the seller may manipulate the refund for their own profit.   If the value rises then give the goods.  If the value falls then "oops, we were actually out of stock" and give a refund.  (I know it didn't happen in this case, but I have no doubt that it has happened)

In my way the seller takes the risk and buyer doesn't' care if the refund happens.  Independent of the value of Bitcoins and whether the refund occurs, the Buyer still has the same buying power and may buy the same product elsewhere.  Independent of a corrupt seller, the buyer can end up with what they wanted by loosing no extra money!

(And people think about the value of their Bitcoins anytime they make a purchase, not the number.  If that wasn't the case then no one would have bought a pizza for 10,000.)

I actually can't see how your method is fair and mine is unfair.  I would say that refunding only 100 if the value dropped was unfair.  I would certainly feel cheated and suspect foul play.

[zebedee]

Paying back 90.78 BTC now would be over $4085~. The 1603 USD amount is too low, and they should send back whatever amount in USD you paid that day, including the shipping/insurance etc, via BTC to you.

Dude, that's tough for Coinabul.  What are you thinking?

They accepted his order for delivery to Czech Republic.  If they can't deliver, they should refund him what he paid, not make excuses about markets moving.  Had BTC gone to $5 I'm quite sure they'd be sending him BTC.

This is bullshit.

[aric]

WTF? Scenario:

• Buyer pays you 100 BTC for something.
• BTC's worth doubles in USD.
• You don't send what Buyer ordered.
• Buyer (obviously) wants a refund.
• You'd then try to only owe Buyer 50 BTC?

The only one getting screwed would be the Buyer. Comparative value is meaningless. The Buyer cares about what he paid in his/her bitcoin. Alternatively, if bitcoin became half as much in USD, Buyer would still be owed 100 BTC. How is it possible to not see how unfair it is to be refunded in anything other than the original amount?

Suppose, the Gold coin was sent.  The buyer still gets screwed (because his good is only worth 50 when he paid 100) by that logic.  

In your way, the buyer takes the risk and the seller may manipulate the refund for their own profit.   If the value rises then give the goods.  If the value falls then "oops, we were actually out of stock" and give a refund.  (I know it didn't happen in this case, but I have no doubt that it has happened)

In my way the seller takes the risk and buyer doesn't' care if the refund happens.  Independent of the value of Bitcoins and whether the refund occurs, the Buyer still has the same buying power and may buy the same product elsewhere.  Independent of a corrupt seller, the buyer can end up with what they wanted by loosing no extra money!

(And people think about the value of their Bitcoins anytime they make a purchase, not the number.  If that wasn't the case then no one would have bought a pizza for 10,000.)

I actually can't see how your method is fair and mine is unfair.  I would say that refunding only 100 if the value dropped was unfair.  I would certainly feel cheated and suspect foul play.

I mean no offense but I'm having a hard time following your points. You might be completely misrepresenting what I said and the situation at hand, but it's hard to decipher your conclusions. The risk is always with the Seller if he or she doesn't provide the product. That's how almost all respectable and honest businesses operate, naturally.

You're posing a new hypothetical where the gold is sent? If the gold is sent and it's legit (i.e. the correct amount of gold is sent) then matters of returns and refunding depend on the time frame of a Seller's policies and guarantees. Assuming the transaction was honest and delivered, the Buyer could not later seek a full refund in BTC (such as if BTC is relatively worth more). The discretion of the Seller's policies come into play on how to reimburse. However, let's say the gold was sent but it was a fake or half the gold or some such. Then the buyer would still be entitled to a full refund in the original BTC amount. None of this is the actual situation that took place, though.

That's why smart retailers don't write checks their asses can't cash. They don't spend a customer's money until a safe time period has passed, as to ensure against loss -- especially when dealing with the risk of fluctuating markets. Many retailers in USD, for instance, generally never treat sales as usable revenue until at least 30-90 days have passed. That ensures against the risk of chargebacks, ACH reversals, returns, and failures -- like the failure to deliver. Sellers handling BTC bear the responsibility for keeping that BTC on hand in the event of such failures. It's not the Buyer's burden. Even more offensive is the notion that a business would spend someone else's BTC when they can't and won't deliver, and then try to delay matters and make off with all or part of that person's BTC payment. Can't pay what's due? Can't handle the risks? Can't resolve matters kindly and promptly? I know what I call a service that does that. Maybe they started out with better intentions but it doesn't negate current behavior.

[Zeeks]

I'm noticing a pattern and not just with coinabul going by the posts in the scam forum and people bitching in irc. Company takes an order and if bitcoin's USD price on mtgox is on an upswing they hold it and wait. They string along the customer for a while then refund them their BTC... at the new rate. Pocketing a nice profit. It's pretty disgusting.

[bravenec]

This whole situation is obviously reeks of scam.  The only reason he is getting away with it, is because somebody doesn't have the fortitude to stick a hot poker in the fucker's (coinabul) eye.

Another sad part of this, is he still seems to be a member in good standing at #bitcoin-otc.  I must say, that the leadership at #bitcoin-otc as also guilty by association at this point.

Please, do you know how to update their status on the #bitcoin-otc ?

[poly]

This whole situation is obviously reeks of scam.  The only reason he is getting away with it, is because somebody doesn't have the fortitude to stick a hot poker in the fucker's (coinabul) eye.

Another sad part of this, is he still seems to be a member in good standing at #bitcoin-otc.  I must say, that the leadership at #bitcoin-otc as also guilty by association at this point.

Please, do you know how to update their status on the #bitcoin-otc ?

You can rate Coinabul yourself if you are an otc user.

[bravenec]

This whole situation is obviously reeks of scam.  The only reason he is getting away with it, is because somebody doesn't have the fortitude to stick a hot poker in the fucker's (coinabul) eye.

Another sad part of this, is he still seems to be a member in good standing at #bitcoin-otc.  I must say, that the leadership at #bitcoin-otc as also guilty by association at this point.

Please, do you know how to update their status on the #bitcoin-otc ?

You can rate Coinabul yourself if you are an otc user.

Thanks. I will register and rate Coinabul there.

[poly]

I don't think coinabul is actually registered for otc, you'll have to rate one of the owners on OTC.

[bravenec]

I don't think coinabul is actually registered for otc, you'll have to rate one of the owners on OTC.

OK. Then I will contact user nanotubes on irc to inform him about Coinabul.

[JoelKatz]

As long as USD isn't shown on the order page, invoice, or receipt, I agree 100%.

It wouldn't matter if a page showed USD prices along with BTC. Paying in BTC implies being refunded the full/original BTC amount, no matter what USD prices are on the page. Anything else is a seller hedging value against the buyer.

by the same reasoning you can buy 1oz now, then come back 5 weeks later and say "BTC has doubled, send me another 1oz, ok"

not.

That's the opposite reasoning not the same reasoning. If you're going to apply the same reasoning to the opposite situation, you get the opposite result, not the same result. You are arguing that the same reason applied to the opposite situation gives the same result, which it doesn't.

The reasoning is that no party has the opportunity to make a strategic decision to change the terms from what was agreed if they are better off with different ones at the expense of the other party. If a party makes the decision to cancel or seek a refund or whatever, this decision may not make them better off at the expense of the other party compared to what would happen if they went through with the sale as agreed.